http://news.sky.com/skynews/article/0,,70131-1291383,00.html


This...

Is not good. The region is likely to unravel (imagine that) pretty fast if this gets out of control

Yeah, all our focus on Iran only highlights that no one knows wtf to do about Pakistan.

Yeah, all our focus on Iran only highlights that no one knows wtf to do about Pakistan.

You can be sure that India is making some decisions right now about what to do about Pakistan. While we have been kept distracted by the Iranian and Iraqi situations, India has been free to continue to strengthen it's position as a partner at the grown-up table, through trade and diplomacy. They are certainly watching their nuclear armed neighbor for any signs of spinning out of control; I would not be at all surprised to see a military buildup along their border with Pakistan for the purpose of "safeguarding their citizens" in the face of the terror attacks and political turmoil resulting in Pakistan.

Some tinfoil hat news, but still adds to the upset stomach this gives me.

http://www.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/asiapcf/11/04/bhutto/index.html

No tinfoil needed there.

I am confused about this. Is this taking a step toward an Islamic militant state or is he targetting the pro Islamic militant opposition?

I would say the latter, the pro Islamic militants and Musharraf are bitter enemies for many reasons. I am not sure I take the alarmist view that many have about this. If the January elections get cancelled or even postponed for an extended period I may become concerned, but as it is the situation before Saturday was such that elections were going to be difficult to hold as Pakistan is used to doing with the increasing attacks. While I have no illusions that Musharraf would love to hold onto power as long as possible, I do believe he is committed to bringing Pakistan forward. Remember that he doesn't just face opposition that believe in a different set of priorities to move forward, but actually faces groups that believe forward is the wrong way to go.

The situation there is unique and he isn't winning any points at home or abroad for this, so I think he may really believe it is neccessary. Remember Lincoln had to lock up some legislators to make sure Maryland didn't secede. Sometimes an emerging democracy has to do some not so pleasant things.

The real issue here isn't whether Musharraf will implement a long term dictatorship, but whether he will galvanize his opposition and lead to the Islamic state he has been trying to avoid.

Don't confuse Musharraf's rhetoric about Islamic extremists with his targeting of the nation's Supreme Court (which doesn't appear to be extremist-friendly), suspension of the Constitution, and blanking of the air waves. Musharraf appears to be against anyone and anything who seeks to unseat him, and that includes much of the non-extremist portion of the country, as well as the Constitution.If the January elections get cancelled or even postponed for an extended period I may become concerned...There's some reason to be concerned (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/7077727.stm).

I have to agree with Thor. It is very much a power thing.

Those who have been imprisoned are political opponents, the constitution had no need to be suspended, and his inability to seperate his military and civil powers means that the office of Prime Minister in Pakistan is very much one of a military dictatorship.

Perhaps you need that in such a tribal and militant state as Pakistan, but by no means is this anything other than a power bid.

The basic situation in Pakistan is that nobody is strong enough to come out and take power from Musharraf as it stands now... what you basically have is a conglomeration of various forces basically wishing to create a "fumble", thinking they have a shot to grab power in this situation.

Once power is up for grabs, it'll get ugly and it'll be widely unpredictable. Incidentally two of the top power players are former Pakistani Intelligence officers that both openly back Al Queda and the Taliban.

Yay?

Benazir Bhutto placed under house arrest (http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/P/PAKISTAN?SITE=KING&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT). Bush (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hd1DkVhUn7M) to Musharraf: "You can't be the President and the head of the military at the same time." :confused:

I think he meant you can't be President and a General at the same time....

At least not in a democratically elected form of government....

God he's so retarded. Bush, that is.

Just seeing that they have shut down all independent news agencies in Pakistan. They are also owning these protestors. Scary :(

Lot of comparisons being made now between Musharraf/Pakistan and the Shah/Iran. The last thing we need is for the moderate, pro-democracy camp to be radicalized into the extremist camp. It's a precarious mess.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20071109/ts_nm/pakistan_dc

Looks like it's calming down a bit....

Doubtful.

Are there any fault lines running through Pakistan, around the areas of the capital and main cities, that extend into the mountainous terrain?

Just curious, in case India gets antsy and does something stupid down the road here to safeguard it's borders from the radical Islamic folks fomenting such disruption in Pakistan. I was wondering if there would be sufficient seismic activity following an attack by nuclear armed India to maybe cause some problems in the mountain areas where OBL and the Taliban folks are holed up.

Simple speculation, mind you.

Only theorizing.

No intent to suggest anything to our India allies.

Bush spoke nearly three weeks after Musharraf declared emergency rule, sacked members of the Supreme Court and began a roundup of journalists, lawyers and human rights activists. Musharraf's government yesterday released about 3,000 political prisoners, although 2,000 remain in custody, according to the Interior Ministry.Bush: "Musharraf hasn't crossed the line (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/11/20/AR2007112002304_pf.html)"
"He's been a loyal ally in fighting terrorists. He's also advanced democracy in Pakistan," Bush said. "He has said he's going to take off his uniform. He's said there will be elections. Today he released prisoners, and so far I've found him to be a man of his word."

The last thing we need to do is endorse those kind of actions. I have to hope that Bush spoke with him and talked him down and said he'd go out and support him as part of their agreement.

But I think its more that Bush has a huge woody for killing "terrorists" to the point where he's oblivious to the rest of the ongoings of the world. A leader imprisoning anyone speaking out against them is a lot more dangerous than a "terrorist" hiding in a cave.

A leader imprisoning anyone speaking out against them is a lot more dangerous than a "terrorist" hiding in a cave.Your clarity of the situation is truly awesome.

In a sense.. he has a valid point.

Think about the root causes of terrorism. The frustration, the lack of freedom, the self hate. A man looks at his society and sees its people repressed and held back. Poor, stripped of its pride and inadequate in comparison to the rest of the world. His leaders ban all criticism of themselves, but foster the hatred on Israel and the West for their problems.

Man moves out of his country because no opportunity exists there, he moves to the west and sees a happy people, working, successful, powerful, proud.

And he grows to hate. But instead of inward and at himself, he hates those who have been successful, those who took advantage of opportunities which belittle him. (mostly this happens in Europe, as immigrants to the US become Americans more than immigrants to other countries become "Germans" or "English".)

The hate focuses itself and the need to bring the mighty down, the need for the small man to make level all things to his lowly height.
So he takes down the biggest symbol he can find and 9/11 happens.

But all this happens with freedom denied. With brutal repression in some parts of the shrinking world and freedom in other parts. The hate and violence and frustration and rage will follow the path of the least resistance.

Either Freedom is the destiny of all mankind, or we will destroy each other.

Your clarity of the situation is truly awesome as well. Bravo.

So let's have some elections in Pakistan and see how long it takes for one of their nukes to become a crater on Wall Street... or what's left of the lower east side.

Oh so countries with military rule are countries that won't war on others, but countries with representative governments elected by the people are hostile?

At least your consistent with not making any sense.

Do you even bother getting out of bed in the morning?

Actually today I got out of bed, made tacos for lunch, played some Everquest 2, interviewed Senator Reid, and then watched some more TV and am now playing more Everquest 2. I tend to get out of bed most days. Thanks for asking.

Now we know where Reid is getting his advice.

My grasp of the situations? Coming from a BushBot? Yea.. ok whatever.

Im not stupid or naive enough (as Bush & Co.) to think that Freedom comes from an election or some ridiculous blue finger. Freedom is more than that. Freedom is about real choices and real opportunity. But how could I expect someone that is in favor of chipping away at the Constitution to understand that. I realize Im asking more of you than you are capable of.

Freedom is a process and is identified by a number of variables. You can have elections and still not be free. Pakistan can and will have elections, but its people still wont be "free". After Januarys elections in which Mushareef will be elected, people in China will still have more personal freedom than people in Pakistan. Freedom isnt created through the Democratic process. It helps, but it isnt the prime drive. Freedom, in a real sense is created through a diverse, open and free economy. A society that depends on its people for its wealth and its power, empowers it people, and those people are free. A society that depends on oil, or subsides on natural resources will never be free, because the government does not need its people.

You want to defeat terrorism? Education, open markets and opportunity. Instead we have people like you that are more willing to support tin horn dictators to serve our own interests and create temporary stability. And we wonder why it all blows up in our faces.

The person you elected, you supported, you cheered, you enabled has driven this great nation to its lowest point in the last 70 years. The damage he has done will take the better part of our generation to repair. Yet still you show up here, waving around this failed ideology, this failed plan.
And then you accuse OTHERS of not understanding the situation?

Lemme guess... Terrorists are because Muslims r Bad, and Izlam is evil? Or some other Retard Malkin bullshit.

Have you no shame? Or like common sense, were you born without that as well?

OBL is more popular in Pakistan that either Musharef or Bhutto. So go ahead, have your free democratic elections there and see how safe those cave dwelling terrorists really are.

The person you elected, you supported, you cheered, you enabled has driven this great nation to its lowest point in the last 70 years. Are you fucking kidding me? LMAO. You and Malse with your funk deserve each other. How's that healthcare plan of yours again?

OBL is more popular in Pakistan that either Musharef or Bhutto. So go ahead, have your free democratic elections there and see how safe those cave dwelling terrorists really are.

I have not seen this in print or any other media, so can you link your sources for this statement, please. Or have you taken a poll of the Pakistani people yourself?

You are reaching too hard, using the actions of varied tribes-people in the hills as representative of an entire country.

I have not seen this in print or any other media, so can you link your sources for this statement, please. Or have you taken a poll of the Pakistani people yourself?

You are reaching too hard, using the actions of varied tribes-people in the hills as representative of an entire country.

Its not in print because it isn't true. However, for a real poll (from late August):

http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/09/11/poll.pakistanis/index.html

Benazir Bhutto: 63%
Osama Bin Ladin: 46%
Pervez Musharraf: 38%
George Bush: 9%

Note that 75% found suicide bombings to be inapropriate, but our continued support of Musharraf after his actions instead of the candidate that democractically would win the election is polarizing the country even further. Osama Bin Ladin's popularity exists only because of our treatment of the war in Iraq.

I hope that shows you how out of touch and clueless Akipt really is.

Oh ok, OBL only has 46% approval rating.. Well, that's just a hair lower than Kerry last election.

I'll admit I was a bit wrong on my popularity order, but my previous statements about the over-generalization in this thread is still correct.

Anyway, no love for Bush is ever allowed. As I posted here (http://www.ayonae.ro/showthread.php?t=9923&highlight=bhutto):

The General’s popularity ratings continue to nosedive even as Opposition parties challenged his re-election as president earlier this month. ... The Bush administration evidently prompted him and Ms Bhutto to work out a deal that would allow her to return home without facing corruption charges so that the duo could be used to fight against the Taliban and al-Qaeda militants sheltering in Pakistan’s tribal areas along the Afghan border.

Of course she almost got killed on her return home ... probably an equal chance whether Musharref had a hand in that. Anyone stating this is a simple "get rid of Misharref and all will be roses" is nutz.

Look at your poll, a vast majority of the population wants Pakistan to be like Afghanistan under the Taliban. Yeah, that'll work out nicely.

Wrong again, not that you'll ever admidt to it.

Meanwhile, al Qaeda has a 43 percent approval rate; the Taliban has a 38 percent approval rate; and local radical extremist groups had an approval rating between 37 percent to 49 percent.

Since when is 38% a vast majority? Only Bush has a worse approval rating than the Taliban in Pakistan. Never mind that allowing Musharraf to have military rule and disband their government only makes the Taliban look like a better option. But hey, who needs to use facts and logic when analyzing issues, right Akipt?

not that you'll ever admidt to it. I did in the post above.

And look at the unfavorables for all those approvals you list. Especially look at OBL's approval / disapproval.

So yea...

I was wondering exactly how a public opinion poll of Pakistan would be conducted... and more importantly... by who.

Now I don't blame you for this Akipt... believe it or not. I actually blame CNN, it is a lazy, worthless "Oh wow, that's shocking, run it", piece of crap. Yet they wonder why the blogosphere is kicking its ass.

The poll was conducted by Terror Free Tomorrow.

Very interesting that organization, and totally unreported on by CNN.

http://www.csmonitor.com/2007/0223/p09s01-coop.html



WASHINGTON - Those who think that Muslim countries and pro-terrorist attitudes go hand-in-hand might be shocked by new polling research: Americans are more approving of terrorist attacks against civilians than any major Muslim country except for Nigeria.

The survey, conducted in December 2006 by the University of Maryland's prestigious Program on International Public Attitudes, shows that only 46 percent of Americans think that "bombing and other attacks intentionally aimed at civilians" are "never justified," while 24 percent believe these attacks are "often or sometimes justified."

Contrast those numbers with 2006 polling results from the world's most-populous Muslim countries – Indonesia, Pakistan, Bangladesh, and Nigeria. Terror Free Tomorrow, the organization I lead, found that 74 percent of respondents in Indonesia agreed that terrorist attacks are "never justified"; in Pakistan, that figure was 86 percent; in Bangladesh, 81 percent.



Same dude, same data as the OBL poll.

Obviously we need to stop having Democratic elections in the US. We have to stop ourselves from electing radicals who would support terrorist measures.

But, no... lets get more afraid. More fear.. go go go!